Lampros DAO Delegate Communication Thread

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Arbitrum Growth Circles Event Proposal
   Voted - AGAINST
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot voting.

After reviewing the proposal and attending the office hour, we acknowledge the intent behind this initiative to support early-stage protocols and builders in the Arbitrum ecosystem. We believe providing mentorship, guidance, and structured peer discussions can benefit ecosystem growth.

As several delegates have pointed out, we echo with the point that this proposal does not align with the Events budget.

@Farstar

This series is a direct response to findings from the AVI Pilot’s ecosystem investment thesis,

The proposal itself mentions this, suggesting that the initiative could have been better positioned as a follow-up to AVI rather than a standalone event. If that were the case, the value proposition of this proposal would be completely different today.

Additionally, we understand that this program is essential before ETHDenver; however, it should have been planned and proposed much earlier. The timing of the proposal raises concerns about execution readiness, especially with ETHDenver just under four days away.

Another concern that felt important to us in the proposal is the lack of a clear roadmap beyond the three-month program post-reporting. The proposal does not explain how the learnings, network, or participant engagement will continue beyond the Growth Circles.

We believe in the Farstar team and appreciate their efforts in proposing Arbitrum Growth Circles. However, we encourage them to incorporate the feedback from the delegates, refine the proposal with a clearer long-term plan, and see if the revised proposal fits in Questbook Season 3.

---

Tally Votes

---

1. Arbitrum D.A.O. (Domain Allocator Offerings) Grant Program - Season 3
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.

Many people want to contribute to the ecosystem, but not all require a full DAO proposal. This program fills the gap by providing structured support and funding to promising projects that can later grow into larger ecosystem players. Without such an initiative, valuable ideas and teams may struggle to get support.

Hence, this program serves as the entry gate for new teams and contributors who want to build on Arbitrum but may not yet have the scale or visibility to seek direct DAO funding.

Regarding the Orbit domain, we previously voted in favor of its inclusion during Snapshot voting, and we continue to support it in this vote. We believe that @maxlomu will manage this domain effectively, ensuring it supports and grows Orbit and aligns with the domain’s goals.

We also have confidence that all elected Domain Allocators (DAs) will manage their domains responsibly, supporting deserving projects while ensuring past mistakes reported by @Entropy from DDA 2.0 are avoided.

Lastly, as mentioned by @Juanrah as well, Strategic Objectives for the DAO are being set up, we expect this program to align with MVP and SOS once it is up. This alignment will help ensure that the funded projects contribute meaningfully to Arbitrum’s and community member’s long-term vision.

With these considerations, we are confident in supporting this proposal.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

We support the ArbOS 40 Callisto upgrade as it ensures Arbitrum stays in sync with Ethereum’s upcoming Pectra upgrades and key EIPs. This upgrade will improve functionality, security, and developer experience while keeping the ecosystem efficient and future-ready.

---

2. Arbitrum Audit Program
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

We attended both office hours for this proposal and, after reviewing the details, we believe this initiative is worth funding. We support initiatives that remove financial barriers for new projects. Many early-stage teams struggle to secure funding, and audits are one of the most expensive yet essential steps before launching.

Looking at the ADPC’s Security Subsidy Fund Report, we see strong demand for such programs. In just 8 weeks of the program, ADPC received a competitive number of applications from teams. Extending this support for a full year makes sense given the clear demand and potential impact on ecosystem growth.

@JoJo

the nature of protocols who could apply. Understanding that this proposal has a growth nature, we need to clarify if current protocols in arbitrum can apply, if protocols migrating/expanding from other chains can apply. And the answer likely can’t just be a single “yes” otherwise everybody who has to do an audit in arbitrum will come here making life of the committee miserable, there has to be some sort of wording on whom can apply

We also agree with @JoJo’s point that clear eligibility criteria should be outlined for protocols. It is important to define which protocols can apply to prevent the committee from being overwhelmed with applications. We would like to see these details clarified before the Tally vote.

And regarding the miscommunication between ADPC and the AF, we believe a structured communication channel between AF and DAO could help with which initiatives they are working on or planning for the future. Whether through monthly Governance Reporting Calls (GRCs) or forum updates, the DAO should be kept informed about ongoing initiatives. This will help avoid such overlapping efforts and improve coordination in the future.

---

Tally Votes

---

1. Request to Increase the Stylus Sprint Committee’s Budget
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.

We stand by our stance from the Snapshot vote and believe it is better to fund these high-quality projects selected by the committee than to leave them unfunded. Delaying their funding to a future round could slow down the growth and adoption of Stylus, affecting its momentum. By supporting these projects now, we enable more teams to build, experiment, and contribute to the ecosystem, ensuring continued progress without unnecessary setbacks.

We look forward to seeing the impact of these funded projects and how they contribute to the growth of Stylus and the broader Arbitrum ecosystem.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. TMC Recommendation
   Voted - #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy, #4 Deploy Nothing, #1 Deploy Both Strategies, Abstain, #2 Only Deploy ARB Strategy
   Reason -

@Blueweb

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting #3 Only Deploy Stable Strategy,#4 Deploy Nothing,#1 Deploy Both Strategies, Abstain, #2 Only Deploy ARB Strategy in line with the TMC’s recommendation.

We acknowledge the concerns raised by most delegates(@jojo, @paulofonseca , @gfxlabs & others) regarding structuring this vote, suggesting that a multiple-choice format or separate proposals would have been preferable to Ranked-Choice Voting. However, as highlighted by many in this discussion and on Telegram, the need for swift execution takes precedence. Given that the desired outcome is unlikely to change regardless of the voting method, we have decided to #3 as our first choice instead of opting for “DO NOTHING”.

We shared similar concerns regarding the conversion of ARB at historic low, as @curia, @pedrob & others have pointed out and as we mentioned in the STEP v2 Tally Voting Rationale. However, we recognize that there is no universally ‘right’ time for conversion. Given that the ARB-to-stable conversion will take place over three months, we believe that any time is appropriate, as our primary objective is to cover the DAO’s dollar-denominated expenses.

We believe that Gauntlet, Karpatkey, and Avantgarde are the right choices for stablecoin management. We appreciated the research conducted by Karpatkey and Avantgarde before the launch of STEP v1, and their track record outside the DAO reinforces our confidence in this decision.

Regarding their fee model, we would have preferred more partners adopting a performance-based fee structure over a management fee model, as stablecoins can generate superior yields through active management, which should be incentivized accordingly. The current fee structure adopted by Gauntlet and Karpatkey may not optimize stablecoin performance—not due to a lack of expertise but rather a misalignment of incentives within the existing framework. As a result, the deal appears less likely to be a win-win for both parties.

Regarding the ARB Allocation Strategy, covered calls appear to be the right approach. However, there is a lack of clarity on how ARB will be reacquired once it hits the strike price and is converted to stablecoins.

We do not believe that current market conditions are unfavorable, as heightened volatility could potentially lead to higher yields for ARB. Given this, we look forward to the next set of recommendations and expect to see ARB generating stable yields for the treasury in the near future.

---

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. GMC’s Preferred Allocations (7,500 ETH)
   Voted - FOR, Deploy Capital
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR, Deploy Capital in this proposal on Snapshot voting.

We haven’t looked into all the applications yet, but we would have appreciated identifying 5-6 different protocols, including a mix of native protocols, to bootstrap liquidity on those protocols and signal to other participants about the use of those native protocols on Arbitrum.

For now, keeping this stack idle makes less sense, and as the committee mentions, this is the first round of many to come. We believe more native protocols will be encouraged in future rounds.

---

2. [CONSTITUTIONAL] Proposal: For Arbitrum DAO to register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

As mentioned in our previous comment, we’re supporting this proposal as it improves the current bridging experience without introducing new risks or costs to the DAO.

We also believe this kind of update doesn’t always need to go through a full proposal process. A more efficient path could be explored in the DAO allowing Offchain Labs or the Foundation to handle similar requests for which they are capable for a fixed term, with clear reporting. This would reduce the governance load for the delegates while maintaining transparency.

That said, we support this proposal and believe it’s a practical, win-win step for both Arbitrum and the Sky team.

---

Tally Votes

---

1. [CONSTITUTIONAL] - Adopt Timeboost + Nova Fee Sweep
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.

As mentioned in our Snapshot rationale, this is a clear and straightforward proposal that supports both the Nova Fee Sweep and the Timeboost AIP, making execution more efficient.

@Arbitrum

Hey everyone, quick update - the auction contracts for Timeboost are actually already deployed on Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, which can be used for Timeboost.

The update from the @Arbitrum team about the early deployment of auction contracts on both Arbitrum One and Nova shows good foresight and readiness for the smooth implementation once the vote passes.

We’re also eager to see how builders engage with Timeboost and the kind of revenue it can bring to the DAO over time.

---

2. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

First of all, we would like to thank @RikaGoldberg and the entire team involved in this initiative. The proposal has been live for months now and we recognize the time, effort, and coordination it has taken from the working group to shape it into its current form. We truly appreciate the commitment shown.

We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.

That said, we agree with some points already raised by other delegates. While the proposal’s intention is great, we think there is still room for improvement, especially around the budget and structure.

For example, the revised budget is still quite high. We feel the team could explore alternative models - for instance, instead of the DAO paying the fellows directly, maybe interested protocols who want governance support could offer stipends themselves. This might better align incentives and also reduce direct costs for the DAO.

On concerns raised by others about whether fellows might leave for other ecosystems after the program, our view is that every investment carries some risk. Some fellows may stay, and some may leave but that’s true for any open ecosystem. The key is to design a strong selection process, which the proposal already includes, and trust it will bring in people with a long-term interest in Arbitrum.

There are also smaller orgs and contributors who want to participate in governance and be part of the DAO but lack the time, knowledge, or expertise. These fellows can help fill that gap. And if they perform well, they may even get retained by teams or protocols later on, which would be a great outcome.

Looking at the curriculum, it seems like an all-round introduction to Arbitrum governance. If the program continues, we’d love to see modules added on OCL, OpCo, MVP, and the upcoming SOS as these are important areas for governance contributors to understand to contribute in the future.

We know our single vote may not change the outcome of this proposal looking at the current status, but we’re voting in favor because we support efforts that bring new talent into the Arbitrum DAO which is needed currently to increase governance participation and build long-term contributor pipelines.

We didn’t get a chance to be involved earlier in this initiative, but if the team plans to iterate on this in the future, we would be happy to participate and contribute in any way we can.

---

3. [NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Audit Program
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in Tally voting.

As mentioned in our Snapshot rationale, we support programs that lower barriers for early-stage teams to build confidently on Arbitrum. Audit costs often block promising projects from launching safely, and this initiative directly addresses that issue.

Since the Snapshot vote, we’ve seen meaningful improvements in the proposal. One concern we had earlier was around eligibility criteria - specifically, how the committee would define which projects can apply. That’s now clearly addressed in the updated version, which helps set expectations and filters out applications that don’t meet the intended purpose of the program.

We also appreciate the added clarity around transparency reporting. Having quarterly updates is good to keep the DAO informed.

Overall, the proposal has shaped up well, and we’re aligned with the direction it’s taking.

---

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. [Non-constitutional] ARB Incentives: User Acquisition for dApps & Protocols
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

We appreciate the significant effort put forth by @kamilgorski in this proposal, engaging on the forum over the past two months, and iterating the proposal thoughtfully by addressing concerns raised by various delegates.

We previously shared our concerns about the proposal and it was addressed by @kamilgorski in his subsequent response, strengthening our confidence in the proposal.

We support this proposal because it addresses a critical challenge highlighted in our LTIPP research that short-term incentives alone have not been effective in sustaining user engagement. The approach outlined by the team is different and specifically targets long-term user retention by combining off-chain marketing strategies with clearly defined, measurable on-chain outcomes.

This proposal’s strength lies in its KPI-driven model, where funding is directly tied to performance metrics. This ensures transparency, accountability, and effective use of DAO funds. It also introduces important metrics like Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) and Lifetime Value (LTV), essential for the DAO to understand which user acquisition methods genuinely work.

Additionally, the plan includes a structured reporting framework, allowing the community to gain valuable insights into successful marketing strategies. This transparency can significantly benefit future DAO-funded initiatives, improving overall efficiency and user growth.

---

2. OpCo – Oversight and Transparency Committee (OAT) Elections
   Voted - Split our votes equally between A.J. Warner, Frisson & Patrick McCorry
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We want to start by expressing our heartfelt gratitude to all the candidates who applied for these roles. Each of you brings unique skills and perspectives, making this decision challenging. After careful consideration of all applications and attending the candidate’s pitch call, we have decided to split our votes equally as follows:

@ajwarner90 possesses a deep understanding of Arbitrum’s historical context and strategic needs, having played a key role in its developmental phases as CSO at Offchain Labs. His experience is particularly valuable for the OAT’s responsibility to oversee strategic execution and ensure alignment with long-term objectives.

@Frisson has consistently demonstrated exceptional leadership and dedication across various DAO initiatives and in the working group. His hands-on experience with DAO operations and communications provides him with the insight necessary to oversee OpCo’s daily management and operational compliance or the key responsibilities of the OAT.

@stonecoldpat brings an essential mix of academic and practical blockchain expertise. His background is ideal for supporting the OAT’s role in fostering innovative solutions and ensuring that strategic initiatives are grounded in solid, research-backed methodologies.

The combination of AJ, Frisson, and Patrick will greatly benefit the OAT Committee. Each candidate is well-suited to meet the diverse challenges of the role, from ensuring OpCo’s accountability to spearheading strategic initiatives that drive growth and sustainability within the Arbitrum ecosystem.

By electing AJ Warner, Frisson, and Patrick, we are confident that the OAT will excel in its crucial duties, uphold the highest standards of governance and transparency, and ensure the effective execution of Arbitrum’s SOS and long-term goals.

---

3. TMC Stablecoin Recommendation
   Voted - YES, Deploy Stablecoin Strategy
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting YES, Deploy Stablecoin Strategy for the Stablecoin Strategy in the Snapshot voting.

As mentioned in our previous rationale, we believe that Gauntlet, Karpatkey, and Avantgarde are the right choices for managing the DAO’s stablecoin allocations. We appreciated the research conducted by Karpatkey and Avantgarde before the launch of STEP v1, and their broader track record gives us confidence in their ability to handle these assets responsibly.

Regarding their fee model, we would have preferred more partners adopting a performance-based fee structure over a management fee model, as stablecoins can generate superior yields through active management, which should be incentivized accordingly. The current fee structure adopted by Gauntlet and Karpatkey may not optimize stablecoin performance—not due to a lack of expertise but rather a misalignment of incentives within the existing framework. As a result, the deal appears less likely to be a win-win for both parties.

---

4. TMC ARB Recommendation
   Voted - NO, Deploy Nothing
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting NO, Deploy Nothing for the ARB Strategy in the Snapshot voting.

We are not in favor of proceeding with the ARB strategy in its current form. As we mentioned in our previous rationale, covered calls appear to be the right approach for a native token yield strategy, but there is a lack of clarity around key operational details, particularly how ARB will be reacquired once it is converted to stablecoins after hitting the strike price.

We do not believe that current market conditions are unfavorable, as heightened volatility could potentially lead to higher yields for ARB. Given this, we look forward to the next set of recommendations and expect to see ARB generating stable yields for the treasury in the near future.

---

Delegation Address Update

---

1. Update on Lampros DAO Delegation Address in Arbitrum DAO

We are pleased to announce that Lampros DAO has transitioned to a new delegation address to better align with our branding and operational efficiency. Our previous delegation address was “chain-l.eth” (0xA2D590FEe197C0b614Fe7c3E10303327F38C0dc3), and our updated address is now “lamprosdao.eth”(0xf070cD4b5bA73A6B6a939dDe513f79862bffCd25).

We have actively participated in all proposals with our previous address and will continue to do so with our new address. We wanted to inform all community members and direct future delegations to lamprosdao.eth. Thank you for your continued support and collaboration.

[Euphoria]

Security Council Elections (March 2025)

---

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

Thank you to everyone who applied for the Security Council position. We truly appreciate the time and effort each candidate put into their applications and the pitch call.

We have carefully reviewed all applications and attended the candidate pitches. After going through each profile and considering the skills and experience required for the Security Council, we have decided to concentrate our votes on the following two candidates:

• Fred
• @dennis

As we have limited voting power, we believe it is important to make our vote as impactful as possible. By focusing our support on two candidates, we aim to increase the chances of electing individuals we feel are necessary for the Security Council.

While reviewing the candidates, we considered the technical proficiency required for emergency response and protocol-level decision-making. We paid close attention to the self-reported scores for Golang, Solidity, Rust, and JavaScript shared in the applications. Both Fred and Dennis demonstrated strong and balanced expertise across these areas, which we believe is essential for this role.

We also considered the geographic diversity of the candidates. Having Security Council members across different time zones helps ensure someone is available in case of emergencies and adds to the responsiveness of the council as a whole.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Approval of STEP 2 Committee’s Preferred Allocations
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

We trust the committee’s judgment in selecting partners for this round, given their thorough evaluation and strategic focus on stability, liquidity, and risk-adjusted setups.

Building on the success of STEP v1, which delivered strong outcomes, we believe this continued approach will strengthen Arbitrum’s long-term growth and competitive position. The committee’s focus on RWAs and overcoming compliance challenges also reflects a forward-thinking strategy to differentiate Arbitrum in the ecosystem.

---

2. [Non-consitutional]: Top-up for Hackathon Continuation Program
   Voted - Yes to both
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting “Yes to both” in the Snapshot voting.

We are in favour of both topping up and moving leftover funds into the hands of TMC. As we’ve previously expressed, we view this reallocation as a practical response to a time-sensitive funding shortfall, made even more reasonable by the fact that it utilizes unspent, already-allocated funds, avoiding the need to convert additional DAO capital in a volatile market.

That said, this proposal highlights an important operational lesson, the need for standardized, pre-approved mechanisms, such as those that can potentially be handled via the TMC, to address minor or urgent funding gaps without requiring full governance cycles.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

We believe DRIP presents a meaningful improvement in how the DAO designs and delivers ecosystem incentives.

We appreciate Entropy’s responses, particularly the clarification that each season will include a public evaluation framework and that protocols will be provided with co-marketing templates and strategic support. This directly addresses past weaknesses in DAO-funded incentive programs, where marketing was often overlooked and reporting was inconsistent.

What sets DRIP apart, in our view, is its shift away from protocol-specific grants and toward activity-based, asset-pair focused goals. For example, targeting something like “deepest wstETH/USDT liquidity” in a season gives the program a measurable north star. It creates aligned incentives across protocols and users and allows the DAO to track whether value is actually being created.

The seasonal structure and ability to adapt mid-cycle are additional strengths. This introduces flexibility while keeping the program grounded in DAO accountability.

We recognize that execution quality will be key. But the architecture and intent behind DRIP reflect maturity in how the Arbitrum ecosystem approaches incentive design. This proposal experiments with the right things like focused goals, clear outcomes, vendor accountability, and continuous measurement.

We support DRIP as a valuable step forward and look forward to engaging closely throughout its rollout.

---

Tally Votes

---

1. The Watchdog: Arbitrum DAO’s Grant Misuse Bounty Program
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.

We strongly believe the Watchdog program represents a crucial initiative for safeguarding DAO resources. It leverages community vigilance, enabling a proactive approach to ensuring DAO funds are utilized effectively and responsibly.

Initially, we built an MVP called Truence (GitHub Repo) that incorporates most required functionalities outlined in the initial proposal, with the intention to participate if an RFP process was conducted for selecting the service provider to develop the Watchdog platform.

@Entropy

After evaluating several options, we have determined that GlobaLeaks offers everything necessary for the program’s privacy requirements.

When Entropy Advisors mentioned that no RFP process would be conducted and they are exploring an alternative solution, we shared our solution directly with them to explore how it could best serve the DAO without charging anything for the platform. Ultimately, Entropy decided to proceed with GlobaLeaks due to its extensive usage, proven reliability, and robust privacy features, criteria which we also value highly. As delegates, we respect this decision and support moving forward with the program. Our MVP was created purely out of enthusiasm and support for this critical initiative, and taken part in the RFP process if it had been conducted.

Additionally, we acknowledge the committee’s decision to release Watchdog reports on a case-by-case basis. We encourage timely and transparent disclosures whenever possible, as consistent updates will help the community and delegates to stay updated on the program.

Overall, the Watchdog program marks a significant step forward for the Arbitrum DAO, enhancing security, accountability, and community involvement. We look forward to its successful implementation and long-term impact.

---

2. [CONSTITUTIONAL] AIP: ArbOS Version 40 Callisto
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.

We are in support of the ArbOS 40 Callisto upgrade as it introduces meaningful improvements with the Pectra upgrade. With the security audit concluding positively, we are confident in supporting the proposal during the on-chain vote. This upgrade will also help Arbitrum stay up to date with changes happening on Ethereum.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Vote

---

1. [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

The current 5% quorum for constitutional proposals has become harder to meet as voter participation has declined and the ARB supply has increased. Lowering the quorum to 4.5% is a practical and necessary adjustment that enables constitutional proposals to move forward without being blocked due to low turnout.

We recognize that this is a short-term fix. As mentioned in our previous comment, we would prefer that this change be reviewed on a fixed timeline before it is implemented, such as after the next six months, so the 4.5% threshold does not become a default standard over time. A fixed review period would help the DAO keep this parameter aligned with actual participation trends.

At the same time, we believe this period should be used to focus on improving overall voter turnout. Ultimately, the goal should not be to continue adjusting thresholds, but to increase participation so that higher quorum levels can be met organically. Strengthening engagement now will give the DAO more flexibility and legitimacy when revisiting this parameter in the future.

Overall, based on the current situation, we support this proposal and look forward to continued discussions around increasing voter participation.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Adjust the Voting Power of the Arbitrum Community Pool & Ratify the Agentic Governance Pivot
   Voted - B - Reduce the delegation to 100k
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting for Option B: Reduce the delegation to 100k ARB in the Snapshot Voting.

As we’ve shared in our earlier comment, we aligned with the original mission of the Voter Enfranchisement Pool. However, we believe the pool didn’t reach its full potential within Arbitrum, largely due to limited marketing efforts targeting the right audience. As I’m an individual voter in Event Horizon as well, I’ve observed the dynamics closely.

Looking at the current state of the initiative, the focus has clearly shifted away from the enfranchisement pool towards building agentic governance infrastructure. For example, during Event Horizon’s recent vote on their platform, 212 votes were cast. It’s unclear how many of these were submitted by human voters using agents versus the agents themselves. Based on our past observations, the vote count before agentic governance integration was noticeably lower.

Given that Event Horizon has moved fully toward AI agent development and is reportedly preparing a working group and an AGI-focused proposal, we believe it makes sense to scale down the delegation temporarily. Option B allows participants to feel meaningfully still involved while giving Event Horizon the space to test agentic governance within the DAO using a non-influential amount of delegated ARB.

A delegation of 100k ARB does not pose any governance risk, yet it enables EH to continue experimentation and provide useful data, such as how many unique users are actually using AI agents to vote and how the quality of participation is changing.

Also, thank you @cxgonzalez for directing towards the update post. However, we echo @Curia’s observation that the shared post doesn’t present the full metrics expected, such as historical voter breakdowns, engagement quality, or progress benchmarks. We look forward to a more comprehensive performance report that aligns with what was committed in the original Tally proposal.

Lastly, we see this vote as a way to give thoughtful space for experimentation while ensuring accountability in how delegated voting power is handled.

---

2. Wind Down the MSS + Transfer Payment Responsibilities to the Arbitrum Foundation
   Voted - FOR: Wind down the MSS
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting For: Wind Down the MSS in the Snapshot voting.

We sincerely appreciate the work of all MSS chairs and signers who have contributed their time and efforts to operate the program. Despite some recent operational challenges, the MSS played a crucial role in supporting multisig coordination during a key period of DAO growth.

As shared in our earlier comment, we believe that in the current environment, the most effective short-term path is to transfer MSS responsibilities to the AF, which has both the resources and compliance infrastructure to manage this transition until the OpCo becomes fully functional.

We also acknowledge the operational friction highlighted by @JoJo:

@JoJo

AF is needed, in every initiative, and almost in every transaction. As a signer, we always have to wait for the greenlight of AF from a compliance standpoint; this has also meant back and forth via email with them.

While this reflects the current reality, we hope that as OpCo takes shape, such dependencies on the Foundation can be reduced through better tooling and more autonomous operational structures. Until then, centralizing the responsibility with AF appears to be the most stable option, and we expect transparent communication from AF about the same.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Reallocate Redeemed USDM Funds to STEP 2 Budget
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

As mentioned in our previous comment, we support reallocating the redeemed USDM funds into the approved STEP 2 basket. The reasoning is sound, and this action helps avoid unnecessary yield loss while staying aligned with the original intent of the STEP 2 program.

---

Tally Votes

---

1. DeFi Renaissance Incentive Program (DRIP)
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.

As mentioned in our Snapshot rationale above, we continue to support DRIP for its shift toward activity-based, outcome-driven incentives and its thoughtful improvements over past incentive programs, particularly around evaluation, marketing support, and adaptability.

In addition to what we’ve already shared, we see DRIP as a valuable opportunity to test goal-driven, activity-based incentives at scale, in a way that aligns user behavior with DAO priorities. The clarity of seasonal objectives and the ability to adjust them mid-cycle gives the DAO better control over how incentives translate into real usage.

Look forward to seeing how season 1 is implemented.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Updating the OpCo Foundation’s Operational Capability
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

First, we thank the OAT and the OpCo for identifying these challenges early, and we appreciate the clarity in the problem statements and the proposed solutions.

We support the overall direction because we believe these updates provide OpCo with the right tools to fulfill its dual mandate more effectively: executing DAO-approved initiatives and proactively preparing work that keeps Arbitrum at the forefront. The added flexibility to engage service providers, deploy discretionary funds for pilot work, adjust compensation to attract top talent, and broaden the scope where needed are all positive steps if implemented with care.

At the same time, we recognize and share some of the wider concerns about accountability, mandate creep, and conflict of interest management. We see these as areas that can be addressed through clearer policies and steady operational discipline. To that end, we would like to share our thoughts alongside our rationale:

@Arbitrum

OpCo has the authority to enter contracts with service providers or individual contributors for any matter it deems necessary to fulfil its mandate to support the ArbitrumDAO.

We agree with the need for agility here and echo the points raised by @karpatkey and @AranaDigital that publishing a simple registry of active contracts with short deliverable summaries and spend bands, updated monthly or quarterly, would keep this process transparent and maintain trust without adding friction.

@Arbitrum

any excess capital that is available can be used on a discretionary basis to fulfil its mandate as a proactive entity in the ArbitrumDAO.

We see real value in letting OpCo test ideas quickly. To maintain focus on core operations, we suggest defining a budget split: for example, at least 70% of total funds stay reserved for staffing and recurring costs, with no more than 30% used for discretionary pilots. This keeps spending aligned with OpCo’s primary executor role rather than duplicating other funding programs.

@Arbitrum

OpCo’s core mandate is to work on, facilitate, and provide operational and oversight support for strategies that have the potential to benefit the ArbitrumDAO.

We support this more flexible scope but encourage a sandbox-style approach: test new verticals through short pilots (three to six months) with capped budgets and clear reporting before proposing full-scale expansions.

@paulofonseca

offchain vote to be conducted with the approval voting type

We also acknowledge concerns from @paulofonseca and @danielo on bundling multiple structural changes into a single vote. While we understand the rationale for this round, we strongly encourage modular approval voting for future governance adjustments so that delegates can support parts they agree with without blocking others.

We believe these updates give OpCo the operational freedom it needs to deliver on its promise to the DAO, while the checks and balances can continue to be refined as we learn.

---

2. Let’s improve our governance forum with three proposals.app feature integrations
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

First, we want to thank @paulofonseca and the team for putting forward this thoughtful proposal and for always working to improve the user and delegate experience in Arbitrum DAO.

As stated in the proposal:

@paulofonseca

Currently, DAO governance remains a disjointed, messy, and confusing experience for delegates and tokenholders.

Most of us who have been active in the DAO for some time are already used to switching between different platforms, the forum for discussion, Snapshot for off-chain voting, and Tally for on-chain voting. While this works for experienced delegates, for new users and delegates joining governance in the future, having key information like live voting status visible directly in the forum could make participation smoother and timelier. We believe this can help grow voter participation over time.

@Curia

however we still believe that displaying raw voting weight could unintentionally cause smaller delegates to be ignored, even when they share valuable ideas.

Regarding the Voting Power Tags, we echo the point raised by @Curia. We agree that exploring alternative indicators, like badges, to show a delegate’s activity might be more balanced and avoid unintentional bias.

On the Proposal Notification Emails, we note the proposal says:

@paulofonseca

Provide a way for forum visitors to subscribe to email notifications, receiving an email every time a new discussion is started, when an offchain or onchain vote begins, and when its voting period is nearing completion.

Personally, I use the existing notifications on Discourse, Snapshot, and Tally, and they have been working well for me. It would be helpful to know if the team has done any surveys or has data on how many delegates feel this additional email feature is needed. If the usage is likely to be low, the DAO should reconsider funding this part at the proposed cost.

For the budget, while we appreciate the cost revision and the open-source commitment, we would be happy to see the payment structured in milestones instead of a single upfront amount. Each feature could be delivered as a milestone with payment on completion, and the 12-month maintenance could be split into quarterly payments. This helps the DAO track progress easily and keeps delivery transparent.

Overall, we believe in the team and trust they will deliver at their best. Our vote is in favour because we see these improvements helping new contributors and delegates by lowering barriers and encouraging wider participation. We encourage the team to work on milestone-based payments rather than upfront payments and to revisit the voter tag feature and proposal notification emails with clear data on delegate demand to justify its cost before the tally voting.

---

Tally Votes

---

1. [CANCELED] CONSTITUTIONAL Register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router
   Voted - AGAINST

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Arbitrum Treasury Management Council - Consolidating Efforts
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

We believe merging the TMC, GMC, and STEP into one council is the right move for Arbitrum’s treasury. We believe this new Council design addresses many of the pain points that arose under TMC, GMC, and STEP. It’s encouraging to see that leftover funds will be used smartly for specialist help where needed, without creating new salaries.

That said, while we support the direction, we want to share some thoughts:

@Entropy

while the proposed structure does position OAT as a final reviewer for decisions made by the Council, this is meant to function more as a governance backstop rather than a body actively driving asset allocation decisions.

We see this point and agree with what others like @bertani mentioned, the OAT was not originally designed for financial oversight. Over time, it may make sense for the Council to help the OAT develop stronger treasury literacy or bring in a neutral advisor for more technical allocation checks.

@Entropy

the DAO will approve the goals of each treasury allocation prior to moving funds

We appreciate this clarity and also agree with @Camelot that balancing yield and growth is always a tricky dance. It would be helpful if the Council could share, maybe in future budget requests, a simple rubric that explains when we intentionally lean more toward ecosystem growth vs strict APR targets.

@Entropy

Entropy will be taking on the role of reporting under this proposal. We will have live dashboards (ideally with a custom frontend

We like the move away from just Dune dashboards. A question: could we have a clear service level for this? For example, that major treasury movements get reflected within 24 hours, and quarterly reports come out within 15 days after each quarter ends. This sets shared expectations for everyone.

@Tane

We strongly advocate for a clearly articulated, transparent, and accountable selection mechanism

We echo this too. It’s good to see the plan to post rationales for SP choices. One practical idea: maybe an open shortlisting or lightweight RFP for big vendor hires could build trust, without adding too much friction.

@CastleCapital

If a decision turns out to be flawed or controversial, the only way to undo it is through a full council disbandment.

This works as a hard backstop, but it might help the DAO if we also had a softer option. For example, if there’s a major reallocation, say 10% of AUM or more, perhaps the Council could post it and allow a 5-day comment window before execution.

Finally, we want to echo what @Jose_StableLab suggested, a short post-mortem covering lessons learned from TMC, GMC, and STEP would be really valuable. It would help new contributors understand which parts worked and which bottlenecks to avoid as we shift to this single council.

Overall, we see this as an overdue cleanup that gives the DAO more cohesion and clearer checks than what we had before.

---

2. [Constitutional] AIP: Remove Cost Cap on Arbitrum Nova
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

Removing the amortized cost cap on Nova makes sense given EIP-4844 and Orbit adoption. It aligns Nova’s costs with its current role and avoids unnecessary subsidies.

As mentioned earlier, we encourage clear communication with affected projects and batch posters, with timelines and dedicated channels to ensure a smooth transition and clarity on migration options to Arbitrum One or Orbit if needed.

---

Tally Votes

---

1. [CONSTITUTIONAL] Register the Sky Custom Gateway contracts in the Router
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.

Our reasoning remains the same as we shared during the Snapshot vote: registering Sky’s custom gateways is a practical fix that makes bridging USDS and sUSDS smoother for everyone, without adding new costs or unnecessary risks for the DAO.

One point we want to stress again is that these kinds of routine technical updates should ideally not need full governance cycles each time. Delegates end up relying on OCL and the AF for technical checks anyway. It makes sense to trust them to handle this directly for a limited period, with clear updates to keep the community in the loop.

This small change improves user experience today and can help us build a more efficient process for similar requests going forward.

---

2. [Constitutional] AIP: Constitutional Quorum Threshold Reduction
   Voted - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Tally voting.

The current 5% quorum is tough to reach with today’s voter turnout and larger ARB supply. Dropping it slightly to 4.5% keeps constitutional proposals from getting stuck for no good reason.

We see this as a simple, safe fix that costs nothing and avoids governance deadlock. As mentioned before, we prefer a clear review after a specific time, be it six months, so this does not stay fixed forever.

While this helps for now, the main goal should still be to improve turnout so higher quorums are easy to meet in future votes.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Audit Committee Technical Expert Elections
   Voted for - Gustavo Grieco
   Reason -

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

After carefully reviewing the applications and listening to both candidate’s pitches, we are voting for Gustavo Grieco as the Technical Expert for the Arbitrum Audit Committee.

Gustavo has been closely involved with the Arbitrum protocol over several years, having audited multiple versions, including Classic, Nitro, and Stylus. That kind of direct, hands-on experience gives us confidence in his deep understanding of the protocol and its evolution.

His long tenure at Trail of Bits, where he worked on audits across both smart contracts and core infrastructure, stands out. Beyond code review, he also contributed to audit planning, scoping, tool selection, and report writing. That combination of technical skill and clear communication will be important in this role, especially when helping the committee assess the quality and impact of external audits.

While Andrei has a solid track record in audit contests and is clearly active in the space, we feel that this particular role calls for someone with deeper protocol-level experience and a longer history in formal auditing. Gustavo’s profile is a better fit for the kind of steady, informed guidance the committee will need.

We’re casting our vote for Gustavo Grieco, and believe he will bring the right mix of technical depth, independence, and maturity to the Audit Committee.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Extend AGV Council Term and Align Future Elections with Operational Cadence
   Voted for - FOR
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

Extending the AGV Council’s term through the end of 2025 makes sense, given this is the initiative’s first full year of execution. Aligning Council terms with the calendar year brings clarity, reduces mid-cycle disruption, and creates a predictable governance rhythm for the DAO to work with.

We also align with community suggestions shared by @Curia, @tamara, and others on improving the transition process and Council visibility. A December overlap period is a good start, and over time, lightweight midterm updates or reflections from the Council can help the DAO stay aligned and informed.

[Euphoria]

Snapshot Votes

---

1. Arbitrum Research and Development Collective V2 - Extension
   Voted - Don’t Extend
   Reason -

@Euphoria

The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting for “Option C: Not to extend ARDC” in this proposal in the Snapshot voting.

Firstly, we want to thank the ARDC team for their work over the past few months. We’ve read the research reports, attended the bi-weekly calls, and consistently followed the content being produced. As a delegate involved in analysis and ecosystem research as well, we’ve been closely tracking the development and impact of the ARDC since its inception.

To be clear, this isn’t a vote against research. It’s a vote for a more accountable and demand-driven model that better fits where the DAO is today.

One of the core structural issues is that the current retainer-based model leads to research being produced based on fixed capacity rather than real-time DAO needs. This often results in valuable research that doesn’t connect to decision-making. We align with @Tane and @pedrob on this point: when outputs lack ownership or a follow-up path, the result is underutilized work and coordination drag.

We strongly believe the DAO would benefit more from a demand-driven setup, as mentioned by other delegates as well. Research should be scoped based on proposal needs, strategic challenges, or questions raised by delegates or AAEs. Contributors/SPs can be selected based on topic fit, and budgets can be tied to purpose, not retainers. This structure would also reduce idle spending and improve transparency around what’s being worked on and why.

That said, not everything fell short. Some reports were useful. For example, on top of my mind, if I recall @Entropy referencing some ARDC research reports in their recent DRIP proposal. But those kinds of examples were rare. And there’s no easy way to see which research was actually impactful. In future setups, it would help a lot to have a simple public tracker showing whether research got cited in proposals or led to actual decisions.

On the comms side, we’d like to acknowledge the work done by @Juanrah, especially organizing bi-weekly calls and consistently summarizing reports through X threads and forum posts. One area for improvement we’d suggest is around distribution: in future iterations, it might help if threads are shared through the Arbitrum official channels like Arbitrum Governance. The content itself has been strong, but visibility could improve if published from accounts followed more widely by the DAO community. Just a distribution point, not a critique of the work.

Overall, we’re voting no on the extension, but we’re not saying research isn’t valuable. We’re saying we need to rethink how it’s funded and coordinated. A structure where OpCo or another neutral entity manages a flexible budget and works with a pool of vetted contributors makes more sense to us. That way, the DAO can still fund high-quality work, but in a way that’s better aligned with its priorities.

We again thank all the contributors involved and hope to see their expertise integrated in a new, more agile format.

[Euphoria]

[Lampros DAO Delegate Contributions Update – June 2025] Orbit Dashboard, Dune Spellbook Work & More

[Lampros DAO Delegate Contributions Update – June 2025] Orbit Dashboard, Dune Spellbook Work & More

Hi everyone, We wanted to share some of the contributions we’ve made as small delegates over the past month. While we couldn’t attend recent events physically, we were inspired by the presence and efforts of other delegates who did. That pushed us to look inward and ask: Where can we meaningfully contribute based on our strengths? For us, that answer was clear: data tooling and ecosystem research. So during June, we focused on areas that align with our capabilities and fill emerging gaps. 1. …